Obama defends the Isis jobs comment with "kill them with kindness".

Yeah, ISIS sure is killing people with kindness. Hello mass murder.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: nwtrucker

When we capture their combatants, they receive almost hotel level accommodations.

Yes, I've heard that Guantanamo Bay is a real Savoy-style luxury break from the drama...

& breakfast in bed comes with a few free gallons of water that the porters & bell boys will even help you to drink.




Real 5 Star accommodation!

Compared to a newly welded four foot square bar cage facility with a freshly petrol soaked jumpsuit?

Is that for terrorists or innocent hostages?


Edit: I suppose Guantanamo Bay could be for either!

Obama's naivety is a threat to national security. His term cannot end quickly enough. He was elected to end the boots on the ground and that is what he is going to do even if we have to retreat from our own country.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: infinityorder

Totally agree on the Kurds. An admirable bunch that we have left hanging, probably due to Turkish concerns.

To a lessor degree the Egyptians have shown mettle as well.....

I agree, Egypt does seem to be getting it stuff together finally.

Now if only everyone else in the mideast could claw their way out of the 3rd century it would be nice.

Last I heard Obama was bombing ISIS, how is that appeasement?

When they capture combatants, they behead them, burn them alive or just shoot them

So you want to be evil like them? That's conservatism for you.

a reply to: CB328

Look, Obama didn't invent appeasement. Even G.W. failed to act when Iran supplied the Iraqi insurgents with I.E.D.s

Likewise is dealing with Pakistan and the return of the Taliban after they had been completely removed from Afghanistan.

Once G.W. went that route-from a military perspective-there was no winning those two wars. If one isn't willing to take out the supply source and manpower source, then sooner or later, the political will erodes and we end up where we are when Obama took over.

Your comparing prisoners leaves out how far Obama has gone, no one is calling for mutual beheadings, but releasing those prisoners and in some cases putting a reward out to get those same prisoners back cross the line completely.

That's appeasement. Give arms to Syrian rebels which end up in Isis hands? Appeasement of the highest order. Failure to supply Jordan or Egypt with intel with which to attack Isis?

Frankly, appeasement is too weak a term.

Bottom line, get in, get it done and get out. Else have nothing to do with it whatsoever in the first place.

This? Pure, unadulterated insanity.

a reply to: nwtrucker

RE: Your comment "get in, get it done and get out."

Do you really believe that a military IRRADICATION of ISIS is that simple or straightforward?

Or were you just being ... hypothetical and/or rhetorical ... in that comment?

Thank you kindly for any response you care to make!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Willtell

If there was a gang somewhere kidnapping and doing mass rapes and torturing the citizens in a US state and they took over a city should we discuss why the criminals turned to crime or first go in there IMMEDIATELY with all force and stop the torture of the people?

But we're not talking about US citizens on US soil are we? That's an extremely important distinction. We have no mandate to police the globe. I'm not an isolationist and I'm all for stopping ISIS but I'm not convinced that we've been somehow remiss in our military response.

The problem with you're reasoning imo is twofold:

Did we have a mandate to go into Iraq in the first place and which caused this?

Secondly we actually are fighting ISIS as we’re dropping bombs so Obama concedes we have to do something it’s just not enough to save innocent lives…

So the premise of you’re argument is void since we are fighting them just on a flimsy basis


Also my analogy goes to the idea of the absurdity of analyzing causation in the middle of the slaughter....
Its a waste of energy in the middle of this war

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'd say it would, or rather, should be the mind-set, both politically and militarily as minimum requirement before any such move by the U.S. to put boots on the ground.

The reality is an entirely different thing. Nothing easy about it. Heck, I'm still not convinced that we should put boots on the ground other than spec ops at this point.

At the least, we should be supporting Jordan, Egypt, the Kurds and, yes, Syria-the enemy of my enemy is my friend- with every means available.

The very fact of their participation, now add in Italy's, shows the seriousness they view the situation. Full support by the U.S. empowers them and perhaps brings others nations in as well.

It's not an impossible scenario that with enough support from us that having U.S. boots on the ground may not even be needed. A long shot, to be sure, but worth the attempt.

Nothing but my opinion, though...

obama is screwed no matter what decision he makes, if he puts boots on the ground and goes after isis he will be labeled a meddling warmonger, not to mention he will inflict much "collateral damage" thereby creating more future dissenters and hatred towards america/the west, if he does nothing he will be vilified for standing by and doing nothing. the man literally can't win!

in my opinion isis is a threat and if you continue to let them grow they will get more and more followers and more and more territory.

the problem with going after them is they do not wear uniforms, they do not a have a conventional army and they for sure do not abide by the geneva convention or international law.

how do you fight a force like that without killing innocent men women and children? how do you stop them without creating more hatred?

how do you stop the infiltration of extremist ideals spreading throughout the world, with the immediate threat being in africa, the middle east and europe?

a reply to: nwtrucker

How many times.........Really how many generations of simple minded people does it take to finally see the truth? They keep doing the same game generation after generation because the people are so foolish.





Look back into US history and see this simple pattern of lies.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

I don't disagree with your assessment one bit.

Not unlike Bush's options after 9/11.

Empower Jordan, Egypt, Syria and the Kurds. Add in anyone else who sees this commitment from the U.S. and decides to join in. At this point it may be our best option.....

a reply to: SubTruth

To which truth do you refer?

The fact that mankind slips in and out of sanity without end?

That it's all a conspiracy? How about a major football match, fights and riots break out all too frequently. Are those 'conspiracies'? I think not.

There are so many divergent views on this planet-both a blessing and a curse-that our survival may hinge on leaving this rock and regaining elbow room off-planet.

While waiting for the age of Aquarius, I intend on surviving. Me, my family and my nation

"Yea though I walk in the valley of death, I shall fear no evil, because I'm the meanest son of a bitch in the valley".

Insane? Perhaps. A definite survival trait, none the less.

Most people miss understand Obamas motive when it comes to his middle east mentality

Obama is not stupid or that it doesn't have a clue, neither that he doesn't know what he is doing, for the member that said Obama is a national security risk, you have more truth on that statement than most.

Obama is a Muslim, he has been all his life, he caters to certain groups in the middle east due to his family links.

He will never risk to have his true nature expose even when a lot of people have exposed his links for years, he will be a sitting duck president and he will keep a neutral stance.

Yes he is a national security risk to America, because his loyalties are not and never has been with the US and the American people first.

originally posted by: marg6043
Most people miss understand Obamas motive when it comes to his middle east mentality

Obama is not stupid or that it doesn't have a clue, neither that he doesn't know what he is doing, for the member that said Obama is a national security risk, you have more truth on that statement than most.

Obama is a Muslim, he has been all his life, he caters to certain groups in the middle east due to his family links.

He will never risk to have his true nature expose even when a lot of people have exposed his links for years, he will be a sitting duck president and he will keep a neutral stance.

Yes he is a national security risk to America, because his loyalties are not and never has been with the US and the American people first.

that would be the single biggest sleeper cell of all time outside perhaps the trojan horse.

originally posted by: infinityorder
You must draw line and actually stick to it,

Obama did draw the line .. then later clarified he never said that.